 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Hail Caesar! | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/19/2010 11:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | Jeff:
I'm not sure how much biblical theology, if any, Asher is taking for granted in his political philosophy. But it seems to me that history alone bears strong witness to the moral weakness of man, regardless.
Sure does. All an "uncircumscised heart" really is...is a heart locked into unenlightened self-interest. And human history bares this out lots.
Unenlightened self-interest
In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed or the concept of "unenlightened self-interest", in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, that the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic.
Some individuals might profit, in a material sense, from a philosophy of greed, but it is believed by proponents of enlightened self-interest that these individuals constitute a small minority and that the large majority of persons can expect to experience a net personal loss from a philosophy of simple unenlightened selfishness.
Unenlightened self-interest can result in the tragedy of the commons.
The Great Commandments (Loving God and LOVING THE NEIGHBOR AS ONESELF) are grounds for enlightened self-interest.
Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.
It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good". Enlightened self-interest might be considered to be unrealistically idealistic and altruistic by detractors and practically idealistic and utilitarian by proponents.
The Church should be an excellent expression of this concept. As members of Christ's Body serve one another, they are also serving themselves BECAUSE they are members of one another...in ONE Body of the ONE head, Christ.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/19/2010 11:07:26 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/19/2010 11:30 AM (GMT -6) | | I think we're all for self-government being the predominant FORM/SPECIES of government. The old saying,
"If you can't live by the 10 commandments, you will live by the 10,000 commandments,"
sums it up. To the extent that people have self-control, they have less need (and desire) of a "king like other nations." For self-dignity goes hand in hand with self-control. And those with self-dignity (which is properly understood to be the appropriate appreciation of being in the "image of God") don't prefer to be treated like serfs/slaves, even in exchange for mammon, unless that is the only way one can see how to lovingly advance the greater good of the community at large. And this is just another way of saying that when those with self-control and self-dignity are in the minority, there really are times to voluntarily suffer for the end of overcoming evil with good.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 9/19/2010 11:36:56 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/19/2010 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
I think we're all for self-government being the predominant FORM/SPECIES of government. The old saying,
"If you can't live by the 10 commandments, you will live by the 10,000 commandments,"
sums it up. To the extent that people have self-control, they have less need (and desire) of a "king like other nations." For self-dignity goes hand in hand with self-control. And those with self-dignity (which is properly understood to be the appropriate appreciation of being in the "image of God" ) don't prefer to be treated like serfs/slaves, even in exchange for mammon, unless that is the only way one can see how to lovingly advance the greater good of the community at large. And this is just another way of saying that when those with self-control and self-dignity are in the minority, there really are times to voluntarily suffer for the end of overcoming evil with good.
Thoughts:
1) If you think about it, self-dignity is impossible without the "image of God" concept. Any idea of inherent worth or dignity in sentient beings (including humans) is absolutely groundless if existential nihilism is true. And existential nihilism is the logical extension of saying that no transcendental reality that grounds sentient life in the universe exists. But being grounded in God's love (in a self-understanding of oneself as God's Beloved) immutably grounds the self-dignity aspect, making self control much easier. Example A.
2) "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
3) God's freedom is expressed in his SERVICE for the highest good of Creation. This is definitively shown in the life of Jesus. When we act the same way, we are willing to be "free from sin and slaves to God" so that we "lovingly advance the greater good of the community at large."
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/19/2010 2:52:53 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/19/2010 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/19/2010 3:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Asher:
If a person is properly self-governed...any other government is at best redundant. I believe God's goal for humanity is self-government. Maybe we aren't ethical enough for an anarchy yet. Maybe we are, and that's what I'm exploring.
Let me ask these questions:
1) Do you believe that healthy self-governance is possible without healthy (non-repressive, non-defensive) self-control?
2) Do you believe that healthy self-control is possible without humility?
3) Do you think that healthy humility and self-control is possible without aid from the Holy Spirit?
It seems pretty clear to me that Jesus (as we understand him from biblical testimony) would NOT have been as humble and self-controlled as he was without the Spirit of God working in him. Period. So, if Jesus HIMSELF couldn't be healthy humble and self-controlled without the Spirit's activity, how could any other human do so? Can a society of people who are enculturated into various expressions of self-exalting pride and unbridled self-gratification participate healthily in an anarchy? I wouldn't think so. So perhaps the question is this: Are the general populace of America grounded in enough reality to actively work against the "inertia" of the current delusional enculturations into radical individualism and socially-accepted greed...and take responsibility for self-government on that basis?
What do YOU think, Asher?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/19/2010 3:13:24 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 9/25/2010 12:10 AM (GMT -6) | | I wouldn't even know where to begin with this thread...
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
To love without love is slavery--Mother Teresa
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/25/2010 10:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? Paul's GOTTA mean something different. I wonder.
Daniel: Unless he means exactly what he says, we just have the wrong perspective. We're trying to universalize the Christian ethic, maybe we shouldn't. I remember reading this over at Inhabitatio Dei. I think this post gives some good reasons for shifting our interpretative stance:
A One-Two Punch on Nonviolence
In any of my various discussions with people about Christian nonviolence, I always have a twofold way of explaining the basis of why I find myself basically in the camp of Christian pacifism. (I realize that term is unwieldy, and not entirely accurate, but it’s be best I’ve got, so we’ll just work with it.) To my mind there are two basic conceptual reasons why Christians should be opposed to the use of lethal force against other human beings. (I’m not here dealing with arguments like, “Well, we should follow the nonviolent example of Jesus…” such arguments certainly have a place, but here I am concerned to offer reasons based on the theo-logic of the Christian confession as a whole.)
However, first a brief word about my basic ethical assumptions that underwrite my perspective. I assume that Christian ethics, by their very nature are for Christians, not for the “world” at large as it is. Christian ethics are irreducibly particular to members of the Christian community. Here I am operating on what John Howard Yoder would call a “non-Constantinian” methodological approach to the church’s relation to worldly powers. Christians in the United States often still operate under the assumption that we are somehow, as Christians, to one degree or another “in charge.” Or at least that we should be and should work towards that end. In this (Constantinian, if you will) frame of reference the Christian’s perspective on ethics are centered on the question of universality. A particular perspective is only viable if we can see how that idea would work out if everyone did that. And so the inevitable question for Christian pacifists from their more “established” interlocutors is always, “Well, if everyone in America did what you’re saying the terrorists would mercilessly slaughter us all while we stand by and do nothing!” What appears self-evident to folks posing this question is that Christian ethics, by their very nature should “work” to run the world on its own terms.
However, if Christian ethics are not simply universalizable, but rather are particular, and indeed only possible within a community committed to the confession and following of Jesus, the question looks different. Here I am agreeing with Yoder’s statement that the question for Christian ethics is not “What would happen if everybody did that?” but rather “What would happen if nobody else did that, but we did?” Christian ethics assumes that it is not in control of managing the world after the pattern of the powers. It assumes that it lives out of control, bearing witness in its vulnerable, cruciform life to the crucified and risen Messiah.
So, assuming we can all go with that basic ethical orientation in which Christian ethics are particular to the church as a witnessing community, where does that leave us? My first observation about the nature of the church as a distinct community is that the church is called to be one. It is called to manifest in its own life a form of unity that is characterized by relational peace, wholeness, and mutuality. The very nature of the church is to be joined, in mystical union to Christ in and through one another in baptism. All members of the church are fundamentally and irreducibly called to what Gerhard Lohfink calls “the praxis of togetherness”. So, if this is the case, if this vision of mutual shalom in communion with one another is at the center of what it means to be the church, I can’t really find a good reason why Christians should think it is alright to kill one another. The fundamental logic of relationship within the church is not one of preserving life (yours or others), but rather of expending life in service for the sake of the other. Killing, even (especially?) in the case of defense is counter to the gospel. The gospel calls us away from defence and self-protection into a life of ek-static giving, to the point of death for the sake of the other. This is the logic of resurrection.
So, if we grant that given what the church is called to be, its members should prefer their own death to the killing of their brothers and sisters, what should the Christian community think of using violence against those outside the church? Here I am driven to Jesus’ missional calling to his community of disciples in the Great Commission. While missions have often been married to violence in the history of Christianity, the logic of mission is at odds with such perversion. The missional imperative to make disciples of all people entails that all persons throughout the world are the objects of Christ’s redeeming love. Christians are called to make disciples of all people, thus all persons throughout the world, regardless of their geographic location are the object of the church’s mission of reconciliation. So, if our fundamental missional identity impels us to view all of those outside the church as the objects of Christ’s evangelical, prodigal love, how then can we, as Christians justify killing them? The provincial reasons of “national security” and other such jingoistic jargon should mean nothing to Christians in light of their vocation as ministers of reconciliation. The mission of the church is to bring all persons into the life of God’s eschatological community. If that is our mission, how could killing ever fit into that? How could we honestly claim that confining someone to death who we are in the world to save is an expression of Christian faithfulness?
So, that’s my basic theological one-two punch on nonviolence. If the Christian call to unity with one another proscribes their killing of one another and if the Christian call to mission proscribes killing the objects of mission, then I don’t really see a way to not be a pacifist. At the very least it seems to me that the logic of the Christian confession and call to discipleship requires the rejection of lethal force on the part of the Christian community. But this should not be all that “radical” or scandalous. I mean, come on! When did not killing people become a horrendous ethical burden too heavy to bear? I can’t imagine a more minimalistic ethic than one that says we shouldn’t kill each other. Not killing people is easy. The problem is that committing oneself to it requires you to live out of control, to reject the compulsiveness of purpose that drives us to secure ourselves as the expense of others. That is what Christians most often do not want to embrace. The problem with refusing to kill is not that it is hard, it is that it may mean that you have to die instead. And that’s what people just don’t want. But if the crucified one is risen, then that’s just not a good reason.
(http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2008/02/06/a-one-two-punch-on-nonviolence/) Emphasis mine.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 9/25/2010 10:14:54 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/25/2010 12:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: The gospel calls us away from defence and self-protection into a life of ek-static giving, to the point of death for the sake of the other.
Jeff: The key, though, is what does it mean to act for the "sake" of another? Doesn't it mean to love one another as one's self? I can't imagine what else that could mean. But ALL people have duties unless they were born so incapacitated that they have no volitional ability to act morally at all. And to do one's duty can sometimes mean staying alive. This is why it can't be right to commit suicide for purely selfish reasons.
So we have to work out all the implications of our duty. That can mean, depending on one's view of consequentialism, that dying for another is appropriate in some circumstances while killing another is appropriate in other circumstances. When Christ tells us that all duty is resolved, ultimately, into the two great commandments, that covers everything. It is never appropriate to assume any other commands are absolute as those two.
As Asher has said, the golden rule ASSUMES that love of self is appropriate, rightly understood. We can never take the golden rule to contradict itself in that sense. And there's no sense quoting one verse to advocate a particular duty if we're going to ignore others that delimit it. The only way the adjudication of that delimiting criteria can be done coherently is to see the two great commandments as the ultimate criteria by which to do it. That means that a properly understood self-love is entailed in all of that adjudication.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/25/2010 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Similtude:
When Christ tells us that all duty is resolved, ultimately, into the two great commandments, that covers everything. It is never appropriate to assume any other commands are absolute as those two.
Hallelujah!
**********************************
Similtude:
As Asher has said, the golden rule ASSUMES that love of self is appropriate, rightly understood. We can never take the golden rule to contradict itself in that sense. And there's no sense quoting one verse to advocate a particular duty if we're going to ignore others that delimit it. The only way the adjudication of that delimiting criteria can be done coherently is to see the two great commandments as the ultimate criteria by which to do it. That means that a properly understood self-love is entailed in all of that adjudication.
Yes! And properly understood self-love is ALWAYS in relationship to God's uncreated, unconditional love and respect for the self. Any creaturely self-love that does NOT integrate into their way of "seeing" love will operate in Kierkegaardian despair. But one can only "know" that love "beyond knowledge" via the Empowering Presence of the Holy Spirit.
Right?
We love God (and through God, others) BECAUSE HE FIRST LOVED US.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/25/2010 1:02:09 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/25/2010 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | D: But one can only "know" that love "beyond knowledge" via the Empowering Presence of the Holy Spirit.
Right?
J: Right. And that that love is ultimately intelligible in terms of post-mortem experience.
D: We love God (and through God, others) BECAUSE HE FIRST LOVED US.
J: Absolutely. Who has given unto Him first that it should be recompensed unto him? Answer: NO ONE.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/25/2010 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Daniel:
I remember this being brought up before, but I'm still not sure I see how either Paul or Peter were the agents behind the phenomena. I think it's pretty clear the Spirit is the agent at work.
Agreed. There's a big difference between a Christian pulling a trigger to a gun that splatters the brains of another human being...and a Christian pronouncing God's judgment upon someone and them dying (or being blinded) from that.
********************************
InDei: The provincial reasons of “national security” and other such jingoistic jargon should mean nothing to Christians in light of their vocation as ministers of reconciliation. The mission of the church is to bring all persons into the life of God’s eschatological community. If that is our mission, how could killing ever fit into that?
Tom: I expect our mission to reflect the divine way of living (i.e., the kingdom).
Daniel: I don't see how that consumes the entirety of our mission. Certainly reflecting the divine way of living is part of what it means to be the church.
Matt 28. 19-20 : Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Daniel: Our mission is directed outwards by the great commission. It necessarily concerns others. You seem to make it explicitly inward.
Hmmm...saw something here...
Let's just say that the Christian identity is essentially linked to the Great Commission because of what Jesus says about it. Basically talking about disciples of Christ making MORE disciples of Christ. Ok, then. What does Jesus say about his disciples...and thus, discipleSHIP? Let's check John 13...
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples: if you have love for one another.
In other words, the "definitional disposition" (heh!) of Christian discipleship is having love for one another. And it's interesting that this just happens to link up with what is said in John 15...
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. These things I command you, so that you will love one another.
Now...let's think about this.
Before we can EVEN GET STARTED trying to work out the Great Commission...we have to "love one another" just like Jesus has loved us. And we know that Jesus loves us as the Father has loved him!
If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.
What does all this mean? Simply this: Anything that a disciple of Christ does that does not involve loving others as Jesus has loved us (ie. with the Father's love) is blatently NOT fulfilling either the Great Commission or the Great Commandments. And making disciples on any other basis is the mere proselytism that Jesus himself talked about in Matthew 23...
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
Thought: Shouldn't these things ground Christian ethical discussion, particularly discussions about how Christians are to "submit" themselves to earthly "authorities"?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/25/2010 3:38:12 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/25/2010 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | | This is DIRECTLY attributable to all of us here on this board, right?
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. [One Love's Note: This is the Great Commission being exercised!] Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/26/2010 10:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Exactly. Our persistence in trying to hash out how to reconcile seeming contradictions and paradoxes to arrive at greater unity is part and parcel of what love is. It's about realizing that our unity, in whatever truth is, is a necessary condition of producing the greatest fruit for God. And producing the greatest fruit for God is our means to our own highest good. IOW, by loving one another this way, we are also loving God and ourselves.
And if we do this consistently, the world can see that this kind of self-sacrifice is truly possible. The nay-sayers want to prove that love of this kind is not possible. That's why they love to point out hypocrisy of professors of the Christian faith. But if we can show that this degree of love is possible, we are serving as evidence that the post-mortem hope we believe in is REAL. Because that hope is only believed in conjunction with belief in the other divine claims that God empowers us to grow into Christ-like love, in the first place.
We are in fact responsible to show that the golden rule is only possible if one fulfills the first and greatest commandment to love God with all of our heart/mind/soul. Any attempt to do the golden rule independent of love of God will fail. Until we experience how God FIRST loves us, we can't get started with sufficient power and motivation, much less attain that degree of love that casts out all fear.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 9/26/2010 10:33:12 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/26/2010 2:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2010 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Similtude:
It's about realizing that our unity, in whatever truth is, is a necessary condition of producing the greatest fruit for God. And producing the greatest fruit for God is our means to our own highest good.
and...
We are in fact responsible to show that the golden rule is only possible if one fulfills the first and greatest commandment to love God with all of our heart/mind/soul. Any attempt to do the golden rule independent of love of God will fail. Until we experience how God FIRST loves us, we can't get started with sufficient power and motivation, much less attain that degree of love that casts out all fear.
Amen.
I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/26/2010 5:21:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/26/2010 5:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | Bi-polar assymetical relational unity between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Christian:
Kierkegaardian "self-denial" and "self-sacrificial disinterestedness"
"Apart from Me, you can do nothing."
--Jesus Christ
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
--the Christian
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 46 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:43 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|